It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:54 PM
Please keep further replies focused on the topic Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz, and leave the politically charged rhetoric at the door.

Thank you.

edit on 12/31/2011 by 12m8keall2c because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:55 PM

Originally posted by IsraeliGuy

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Wouldn't surprise me if they were willing to ``sacrifice`` those soldiers. Wouldn't be the first time a government does this.

Oh COME ON.. Here we go again.
If the US wanted to sacrifice something it'd sacrifice a boat, a sub, a ship.. not an entire fleet worth of hundreds of billions of dollars just to give themselves an OK to go to war.

I gotta say that I totally agree with Vitchilo on this one.

What better justification for another war that the majority of the US population does not want, or can afford?

Just make the loss significant enough to justify why we need to "go in and kick butt".

The writing is on the wall for all to see. It's just how you read it that is different. Who is the stupid party sending in a fleet when another country is holding war games? Don't you see that as a US provocation to Iran? I see it as giving Iran a target to shoot at - a "fair-game" target of oppurtunity. "The shot heard around the world" type of thing.

If Russia, Iraq, and others have fought Iran for years AND LOST, why would you think that we could do any better? Russia and Iraq are not on the other side of the globe from Iran. They are right there. WE are on the other side of the globe.

Technology alone does not win a war. Soldiers will still have to set foot before any winning statement can be made. Bombing a country flat does not mean you won. Occupy it, then you have something to beat your chest about.

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:56 PM
reply to post by Clisen33

I'm rejoining the Navy next year... as a SEAL.

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:57 PM

Originally posted by susp3kt

Originally posted by butcherguy
The Iraqis fired one at us and the Brits shot it down with one of their anti-missile missiles.

That may be so, & then it might not be, but the C-802 nor the Nasr-1 are no outdated Silkworms though.

The single shot hit probability of the Yingji-82 is estimated to be as high as 98%

The Nasr-1 is undetectable on radar.

Like I said, the Silkworms were going to kick our butts back then, and they didn't. That was what we were told, that they had tons of them and would loose them upon us. The Silkworms weren't old tech at the time.

Now it's being said again, and I just happen to think that we are hearing some more tired old rhetoric. Again.

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:58 PM
The only wining move is not to play.
This is why I think non-interventionism trumps globalist policy.

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:00 PM
reply to post by susp3kt

large numbers of c-802 would be required to sink a carrier or to penetrate a CBG.Its a old missile but effective in destroying frigates and destroyers. Iran will never be a pushover .USA can easily solve the issue with diplomacy ,but because of bilderberg and zionist lobbies,USA is taking a military option which is worst option.

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by MikhailBakunin

Great editing. I didn't say that the US Navy would be destroyed. It would be in to Iran to try to do so, when in fact it would never happen. But lives would be lost as well as ships if it were to come to this.

A massive salvo of anti ship…even anti tank missiles could do some damage to the Battle Group.

But in my opinion, once done, their wad would be shot.

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by mkgandhas

The US has not taken a 'military option' unless you define a military option as sailing on the open seas. Libya tried to restrict the Gulf of Sidra and claim it as territorial waters. Restricting free trade and mining international waters is not a good thing to do.

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:11 PM
Yeah i guess theoretically this could be done if the US didnt monitor what was going on around them and didnt look for the possibility of missiles being launched from somewhere.

My guess is that the US knows pretty much where all the missile bases in Iran are located (not to mention the advanced countermeasures that could be used for those missiles they didnt anticipate). I would also imagine that the US would launch a massive bombing attack to neutralize Iranian offensive measures before they could even start.

At any rate, if Iran sank a carrier they would most likely be nuked. Game over.

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Personal opinion, I doubt the Navy would be "destroyed" by iran, but I think we run the risk of a possible bloody nose out of it. Unless the russians or china sided with iran I doubt they could take out a carrier, support craft possibly cause thats what their there for to protect the carrier. Now russia or china, now they I feel would have the goods that could take down a carrier. Gonna be real interesting to see how this plays out.

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by pteridine

Libya was a case where again zionist and bankers pressures were interested in provoking and destroying it. Same with Iran.When will you americans awaken and see that the real enemy is the bankers and the zionists who have looted and plundered you and use you as cannon fodder.

Quotes from kissinger:

Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the world government.


Military Men Are Just Dumb, Stupid Animals To Be Used As Pawns In Foreign Policy

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:39 PM
I would not dream of arguing with anything you wrote below.

Expept for this.

I don't know who you are or anything about you but I will still bet that you don't get in personal fights every day. Maybe you have never been in a fight or maybe you have been in 50 but the point is you don't just pick a fight for the hell of it.

Most people don't. The odd person does and they are mentally or emotionally disturbed.

Sorry to take so long to get to the point but you can probably beat the crap out of half the people you meet just like the US can nuke any nation on the planet.

The point is you don't beat up people because you not a lunatic and you have no real reason to beat them up. In this case the US has no reason to fire a .22 toward Iran let alone rain down 1,000 nukes.

We can not allow a few politicians to kill other people around he world for no good reason and to put US troops in harms way because some think-tank says we can win a war or Israel wants to knock out a potential advisary.

Originally posted by Dbriefed
Navy ships and the subs that escort them carry nuclear warheads.

The last war the US decisively won, was ended by Nukes. That was also the last war where nations targeted population centers instead of containing them to military and strategic targets. The US didn't either 'win' or finish the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Iraqi war, or any war since WWII. There was no victory parade for the military returning from Iraq since it was an early withdrawal.

If there was an overwhelming attack on the US Navy, the world would be shocked at repeatedly played news clips of Nuclear explosions in Iran.

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:40 PM
reply to post by Off_The_Street

once you pass through the Straits of Hormuz aren't you trapped? Iran has alot of coastline to shoot from.

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:41 PM

Originally posted by randomname
no aircraft carrier can withstand a missile assault. the truth is aircraft carriers haven't been tested seriously in war since ww2, when anti-ship missile technology didn't exist.

edit on 30-12-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)

Falklands war?

Second line
edit on 31-12-2011 by BRITWARRIOR because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:42 PM
LOL yeah trapped.

Originally posted by ZeussusZ
reply to post by Off_The_Street

once you pass through the Straits of Hormuz aren't you trapped? Iran has alot of coastline to shoot from.

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:46 PM
I think the answer to the OP is this:

Since the war game played out 10 years ago showed the vulnerability of a Carrier Fleet when attacked by a massive missle barrage and small/fast attack craft, it would be in the US Navy's best interest to include this in its doctrine of warfare tactics. This would make the attack less effective since it is now a possibility that has been considered. This doesn't mean that the US Navy would not take casualities, only that it could be prepared for such an event and be on the attack quicker rather than sustaining a defensive posture.

Since seconds count when missles are flying. I think it would be safe to say that not only could the US Navy systems engage inbound targets, but, it would also have targets of its own and be launching a counter attack on predesignated targets. Since we are talking about a Carrier fleet, the alert patrol air craft would already be attacking targets and the cruisers, frigates, destroyers and subs would be lauching a counter attack with an equal number of missles in the air headed towards Iranian targets.

US Navy casualties would be unavoidable, however, the Iranian surface and sub fleet in the area of engagement, along with Iranian coastal missle sights would be damaged beyond their ability to be useful.

Its not about hi-tech or low-tech. Its about being prepared for whatever scenario presents itself. I give this to the US Navy because it will be ready for this situation.

Just my 2 cents.

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:47 PM
Lets not forget carrier groups are not bunched together like sardines when they move the shbips can be many miles apart so that an area of defence can be established, this in turn allows many obsticales before reaching a actual carrier. You would have to chip away the first defences but by time that accomplished the carrier has there birds in the air and we all know how badass US air power is.

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:48 PM

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by pteridine

Military Men Are Just Dumb, Stupid Animals To Be Used As Pawns In Foreign Policy

I concur with you 100% on the previous post to the one I am quoting the above from, but your statement here is a terrible generalization.

Granted, I do know some stupid people currently in military service, but then again I know some ten-fold stupid doctors, lawyers, etc. You can't just paint the whole service with one brush. They are all there serving for different reasons, and yes, most likely some are there for the wrong reasons. Most are good-hearted & country-loving folks. Your addressing of them in this garish light, regardless of them being NWO, psychopath-controlled, pawns of war, regardless of their knowledge or lack thereof of the fact that they are being used in this manner is utterly disrespectful to them & the ones before them...those whose lives were laid down for freedom & purpose.

I don't find what I just stated cliche at all. I have respect for all soldiers who serve and are willing to protect the people of this country...NOT the interests of a select few bottom-feeders.

Other than that, I agree with you & it's nice to see someone who knows what's up.

Happy New Year ATS!

edit on 31-12-2011 by susp3kt because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:49 PM

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

You again?

Half of it WAS computer simulations. Did you even read anything about Millennium Challenge 2002 before you went and posted a topic about it? It was in the first freaking sentence of the Wikipedia which you quoted:

Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) was a major war game exercise conducted by the United States armed forces in mid-2002, likely the largest such exercise in history. The exercise, which ran from July 24 to August 15 and cost $250 million, involved both live exercises and computer simulations.

If you want to throw out quotes claiming that it wasn't scripted, I'll send you a page that says it was:

War games rigged? General says Millennium Challenge 02 ‘was almost entirely scripted’

Of course it's also very convenient of you to ignore OptimusSubprime's post. Someone with actual military experience, who has obviously experienced attacks in REAL LIFE. Not a "war game." Games are NOT war.

Yet you continue to act as if you know the entire arsenal of the modern military by using COMPLETELY outdated internet sources without ANY personal experience. The military, ESPECIALLY Nimitz class carriers, have weapons systems about 10 years ahead of what civilians are capable of. Keep that in mind, and now think about how much CIVILIAN technology has changed since 2002. Technology is always progressing. You seem to have some fetish for the destruction of our military.

Also you DO realize that we have missile defense systems and satellites so sensitive that they could be tracked within the first phase of their launch, correct? It's foolish to think that DC would be that easy of a target.

The first part was not scripted and coincidently also the part were iran won.After that they started scripting it,so...

^(hence the

almost entirely scripted
in your own link) So unscripted and in free play iran won.Scripted,the u.s won.Of course computers were used to simulate missiles and such unless you expected them to fire real missiles at each other.
edit on 31-12-2011 by Rafe_ because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:49 PM

edit on 31-12-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in